> The main advantage I see is the oportunity to have a good, > object oriented design of the API to give an example of a > good and usable Crypto API.
You know about Wei's Crypto++, right? > Then do a C++ implementation of the API (spell: header files) and > see, whether this is possible without tricks. Also have the API > defined in other languages such as Python, Ruby, Java,... If you keep our C++ reasonably simple (no templates) then SWIG (http://www.swig.org) will make the scripting language glue code for you automatically. Ng Phong did that for openssl, added some Python utilities and release m2crypto. Swig and m2crypto are both a tour de force, if you ask me. > As a result, there will be a language-independend object-oriented > Meta-API, describing the library virtually for all languages. Like the W3C DOM, defined in Corba IDL? Do you really want crypto API's written in Corba IDL or something just like it? I'm not so sure. You pay a real price for that abstraction. /r$ -- Rich Salz Chief Security Architect DataPower Technology http://www.datapower.com XS40 XML Security Gateway http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html XML Security Overview http://www.datapower.com/xmldev/xmlsecurity.html --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
